heili skrimsli:c0penhaqen: Personally, I don't have a problem with a change in the law which requires a NICS check for all members of the trust or changes which require CLEO sign-off as long as a few provisions are provided.

I'd rather just remove that requirement so that police chiefs can't supplant the law with their own personal opinions.

Replace it with a notification to the local CLEO instead of a requirement that they sign off on it, and the option to file in opposition if there is some reason the CLEO knows that the person shouldn't get the gun.

That replaces a "veto through inaction", ie., the CLEO can just refuse to sign the form, with an "active VETO", ie., the CLEO must fill out an additional form detailing why the person shouldn't be allowed, if they are opposed to that person getting a machine gun, and they have to submit it to the ATF within, say, 30 days of receiving notification.

That way, the CLEO has to come up with an actual, articulable *REASON* why, which can be rebutted by the attempted purchaser.

And I'd apply that to both trusts *AND* private NFA transfers.

/Actually, I'd prefer to first repeal the Hughes Amendment, and then when the sky doesn't fall, as it won't, I'd also want to repeal or highly modify NFA '34 to make it more open.

No. The right wing is the main reason more effective rules and laws don't go through. The ATF is intentionally hamstrung.

I'll bet the right wing would be much more willing to help if those "effective" rules and laws weren't designed specifically to fark over law-abiding citizens. People don't support collateral damage! Who knew!?!?

Fubini:smokingcrator: Typical shooters hearing protection muffs are 26 to 30 db of reduction. 33 is about the max. So no, if the silencer reduces it by 30db, you do NOT need hearing protection. It would be no louder than shooting with a good pair of hearing protection muffs already on.

This is a horribly misguided sentiment. What you really ought to be doing is understanding the actual risk your weapon presents to your hearing.

Firing an M1 Garand (old school battle rifle firing .30-06) generates 168db of sound pressure, so one hearing protection device that reduces 30db will only take it down to 138db, which is still above the threshold of audible pain (130db) and well above the threshold for hearing damage at 85db. To safely fire such a weapon would require at a minimum both earmuffs and earplugs.

Silencers are only one way to reduce sound pressure, but a smart person uses all available tools at their disposal to protect their hearing.

Remember: All hearing damage is permanent. It might not feel like a lot today or tomorrow, but 30 years of that shiat will leave you deaf.

And that's why I use ear protection when using loud machinery like the lawmower. It's not painful loud, but I know that if I have to shout to someone standing next to me in order to speak with them, then it's loud enough to do damage.

smokingcrator:Typical shooters hearing protection muffs are 26 to 30 db of reduction. 33 is about the max. So no, if the silencer reduces it by 30db, you do NOT need hearing protection. It would be no louder than shooting with a good pair of hearing protection muffs already on.

And I should point out that the sound pressure delivered to the shooter is not just a function of weapon type and cartridge. A poorly designed .22 rifle can produce 145db of sound pressure at the shooter.

No. The right wing is the main reason more effective rules and laws don't go through. The ATF is intentionally hamstrung.

I'll bet the right wing would be much more willing to help if those "effective" rules and laws weren't designed specifically to fark over law-abiding citizens. People don't support collateral damage! Who knew!?!?

It's a feature not a bug. Even the focus on long guns in general is silly, since far more murders are committed with handguns.

Fark It:Krymson Tyde: What's the big deal with silencers? If I've learned anything from Hollywood it's that a gun can be rendered noiseless by the simple application of a pillow. We all have pillows lying around.

Zane256:c0penhaqen: The reason most people set up a trust or LLC to obtain NFA items is to name family members as members of the trust. When an individual is named as the owner of an NFA item, upon that persons' death the item in question should be forfeited to the BATFE. It cannot be willed or left to family members.

Completely untrue. They are passed, tax free, on a Form 5.

The reason you do a trust is a) to avoid the CLEO b) so that other family members can possess the items. If the Form 4 is filled out as an individual, only the person who is list on the form can possess the Title II weapon.

Just to make this clear: possession = access, as well. If I had an NFA weapon as an individual, and kept it in the same safe as everything else, and my wife had the combo, she would illegally have access to it, and thus possession. Fine, I'll get another safe for my NFA stuff.

We go to the range, and stop for lunch on the way home. She has keys to my car, which I lock the gun in. She has access to it, and therefore possession. OK, we'll drive separately, and I'll take her keys away from her while it's in my car.

We go visit family (in separate vehicles of course!) and bring my NFA gun so they can check it out. While we're there, we leave it locked in their safe, since we're good gun owners and don't want it left out for kids to find. But wait, they have access to their safe, and thus possession of the NFA gun.

THIS is why I formed a trust. Not to get around the CLEO provision, or to avoid having to do fingerprints or pictures (although those were nice bonuses)... but to keep me and mine out of FPMITA prison and paying $10,000 fines.

Maybe I should have phrased that better: all hearing damage (however slight) is cumulative.

Firing modern firearms with one form of hearing protection (just earmuffs or just earplugs) only nets about a 20-30db reduction in sound pressure. Unfortunately, most firearms generate sound pressures in the range of 140-170db, so one form of protection only gets you down to 110-140db. This is above the threshold for hearing damage (85db), so even though the hearing protection makes the sound quieter, it doesn't mean that it's protecting you from all hearing damage.

Put simply: firing a modern handgun or rifle with only one form of hearing protection results in hearing damage every time you pull the trigger. It's not enough to deafen you immediately, it's not enough to notice in a before/after comparison, but it does cause damage. If you shoot guns like that for years on end, that damage accumulates and generates a significant loss of hearing ability.

Kredal:Zane256: c0penhaqen: The reason most people set up a trust or LLC to obtain NFA items is to name family members as members of the trust. When an individual is named as the owner of an NFA item, upon that persons' death the item in question should be forfeited to the BATFE. It cannot be willed or left to family members.

Completely untrue. They are passed, tax free, on a Form 5.

The reason you do a trust is a) to avoid the CLEO b) so that other family members can possess the items. If the Form 4 is filled out as an individual, only the person who is list on the form can possess the Title II weapon.

Just to make this clear: possession = access, as well. If I had an NFA weapon as an individual, and kept it in the same safe as everything else, and my wife had the combo, she would illegally have access to it, and thus possession. Fine, I'll get another safe for my NFA stuff.

We go to the range, and stop for lunch on the way home. She has keys to my car, which I lock the gun in. She has access to it, and therefore possession. OK, we'll drive separately, and I'll take her keys away from her while it's in my car.

We go visit family (in separate vehicles of course!) and bring my NFA gun so they can check it out. While we're there, we leave it locked in their safe, since we're good gun owners and don't want it left out for kids to find. But wait, they have access to their safe, and thus possession of the NFA gun.

THIS is why I formed a trust. Not to get around the CLEO provision, or to avoid having to do fingerprints or pictures (although those were nice bonuses)... but to keep me and mine out of FPMITA prison and paying $10,000 fines.

Now lets's see how long before someone says that you're just being paranoid. Cops/ATF wouldn't hesitate to drop the hammer on someone, and they do so for far less.

Did you submit it last week too with a different headline? Because this is a repeat - as are all of your points in every gun thread. (Don't mind conceding that you're very well informed). But dude...you're completely obsessed. You dominate every firearm discussion thread and have tried on several occasions to steer non-gun threads into 2nd Amendment debates. And then there are the pics... I guess my point is that this degree of dedication go well past "hobby and interest" and veers into, I don't know, idolatry. It also discounts the value of your opinion.

This is the kind of thing that should get anyone mad, regardless of how you personally feel about guns:

The Subcommittee received evidence that BATF has primarily devoted its firearmsenforcement efforts to the apprehension, upon technical malum prohibitum charges, of individualswho lack all criminal intent and knowledge. Agents anxious to generate an impressive arrest and gunconfiscation quota have repeatedly enticed gun collectors into making a small number ofsales-often as few as four-from their personal collections. Although each of the sales wascompletely legal under state and federal law, the agents then charged the collector with having"engaged in the business" of dealing in guns without the required license. Since existing law permitsa felony conviction upon these charges even where the individual has no criminal knowledge orintent numerous collectors have been ruined by a felony record carrying a potential sentence of fiveyears in federal prison...In several cases, the Bureau has soughtconviction for supposed technical violations based upon policies and interpretations of law whichthe Bureau had not published in the Federal Register, as required by 5 U.S.C. § 552. For instance,beginning in 1975, Bureau officials apparently reached a judgment that (pg.22) a dealer who sells toa legitimate purchaser may nonetheless be subject to prosecution or license revocation if he knowsthat that individual intends to transfer the firearm to a nonresident or other unqualified purchaser.This position was never published in the Federal Register and is indeed contrary to indicationswhich Bureau officials had given Congress, that such sales were not in violation of existing law...The Constitution Subcommittee also received evidence that the Bureau has formulated arequirement, of which dealers were not informed that requires a dealer to keep official records ofsales even from his private collection. BATF has gone farther than merely failing to publish thisrequirement. At one point, even as it was prosecuting a dealer on this charge (admitting that he hadno criminal intent), the Director of the Bureau wrote Senator S. I. Hayakawa to indicate that therewas no such legal requirement and it was completely lawful for a dealer to sell from his collectionwithout recording it. Since that date, the Director of the Bureau has stated that that is not theBureau's position and that such sales are completely illegal; after making that statement, however,he was quoted in an interview for a magazine read primarily by licensed firearms dealers as statingthat such sales were in fact legal and permitted by the Bureau. In these and similar areas, the Bureauhas violated not only the dictates of common sense, but of 5 U.S.C. Sec 552, which was intendedto prevent "secret lawmaking" by administrative bodies.

That's the reason why the ATF was "hamstrung": Because it was violating the due process rights (never mind the Second Amendment rights) of the people they were prosecuting, so much so that Congress felt it had to step in and limit what the ATF was allowed to do.

Even if you think guns should be completely outlawed, I'm sure you would agree that secret rule-making by government agencies in order to advance that is unAmerican, and sets a really, really bad precedent.

pyrotek85:Kredal: Zane256: c0penhaqen: The reason most people set up a trust or LLC to obtain NFA items is to name family members as members of the trust. When an individual is named as the owner of an NFA item, upon that persons' death the item in question should be forfeited to the BATFE. It cannot be willed or left to family members.

Completely untrue. They are passed, tax free, on a Form 5.

The reason you do a trust is a) to avoid the CLEO b) so that other family members can possess the items. If the Form 4 is filled out as an individual, only the person who is list on the form can possess the Title II weapon.

Just to make this clear: possession = access, as well. If I had an NFA weapon as an individual, and kept it in the same safe as everything else, and my wife had the combo, she would illegally have access to it, and thus possession. Fine, I'll get another safe for my NFA stuff.

We go to the range, and stop for lunch on the way home. She has keys to my car, which I lock the gun in. She has access to it, and therefore possession. OK, we'll drive separately, and I'll take her keys away from her while it's in my car.

We go visit family (in separate vehicles of course!) and bring my NFA gun so they can check it out. While we're there, we leave it locked in their safe, since we're good gun owners and don't want it left out for kids to find. But wait, they have access to their safe, and thus possession of the NFA gun.

THIS is why I formed a trust. Not to get around the CLEO provision, or to avoid having to do fingerprints or pictures (although those were nice bonuses)... but to keep me and mine out of FPMITA prison and paying $10,000 fines.

Now lets's see how long before someone says that you're just being paranoid. Cops/ATF wouldn't hesitate to drop the hammer on someone, and they do so for far less.

Did you submit it last week too with a different headline? Because this is a repeat - as are all of your points in every gun thread. (Don't mind conceding that you're very well informed). But dude...you're completely obsessed. You dominate every firearm discussion thread and have tried on several occasions to steer non-gun threads into 2nd Amendment debates. And then there are the pics... I guess my point is that this degree of dedication go well past "hobby and interest" and veers into, I don't know, idolatry. It also discounts the value of your opinion.

My two cents.

This is actually an update, not a repeat, but don't let actually reading the link get in the way of that sentiment you got there.

Kit Fister:dr_blasto: Kit Fister: Fark It: Krymson Tyde: What's the big deal with silencers? If I've learned anything from Hollywood it's that a gun can be rendered noiseless by the simple application of a pillow. We all have pillows lying around.

And an empty water bottle.

Pillows work once. Water bottle sucks, water bottle stuffed with something like choreboy sponges work OK. Oil filters are still the best.

Oil filters are silly unless you're really good at point shooting or at point blank range.

Laser sight works fine.

And, considering use with a handgun, you'd also need to make sure the thing will unlock and cycle with the weight on the end and no Nielsen mechanism to help. You'd also have to worry about serious blowback if you had the oil filter's threaded side facing the breech, if turned the other way, you'd have to figure a reliable way to keep it aligned without worrying about deforming. Oil filter as suppressor isn't all that good an idea.

No. The right wing is the main reason more effective rules and laws don't go through. The ATF is intentionally hamstrung.

I'll bet the right wing would be much more willing to help if those "effective" rules and laws weren't designed specifically to fark over law-abiding citizens. People don't support collateral damage! Who knew!?!?

It's a feature not a bug. Even the focus on long guns in general is silly, since far more murders are committed with handguns.

Now, remember, "murder, OMG the CHILDREN" is just the villain in our quest to remove ALL gunz ALL the time.

JesseL:Zane256: Fubini: This is above the threshold for hearing damage (85db), so even though the hearing protection makes the sound quieter, it doesn't mean that it's protecting you from all hearing damage.

That 85 db for damage assumes a constant, time weighted average over 8 hours on essentially a daily basis. 140 db is where you can starting seeing damage from very short sound impulses.

What about a few hundred of those short impulses over the course of a couple hours (like a typical day at the range)?

At 85 dbs? No big deal. Any sound over 140 db without hearing protection, however, has the potential for hearing damage. Even a single gunshot without hearing protection can result in hearing damage.

Fark It:At least the GOP does it the hard way and goes through the legislature. Obama is doing this with a stroke of his pen. And you can actually count instances of voter-fraud (not that that justifies voter disenfranchisement). Felons obtaining NFA weapons and using them in crimes via the NFA registry, OTOH.....

Yeah, how many crimes will this prevent anyway?

plausdeny:In some European countries, such as Sweden and Norway, where firearm rights are strictly controlled, use of a silencer is very common. Put everything else about their firearm aside, and they got this one right: a device that reduces (does not eliminate) the report of a shot by about -30db protects the hearing of the user and bystanders. That's a safety, health and politeness all delivered by a little metal tube with some baffles in it.

Agreed. Unless it can drive the report down to levels to escape notice it's of no use to criminals and shouldn't be a regulated item at all.

technofiend:This is what bothers me about things like walking dead. Nobody thought to roll around Atlanta at night in a golf cart mode Prius with suppressed weapons and night vision gear. Or engineer industrial-scale murder with road or farm equipment.

What's the need for stealth? Get a bunch of guys with rifles. Get an 18-wheeler and set up a bunch of shooter's positions on top of the trailer. Drive into zombie territory and make a ruckus. If too many show up that they are getting close despite the guys with the rifles you move on a bit and repeat. Why go zombie hunting when the zombies will perfectly well throw themselves on your guns anyway?

Pelvic Splanchnic Ganglion:n0nthing: It's also not terribly difficult, expensive, or illegal to purchase a machine gun kit, an 80% receiver, and a dremel.

Yeah, then there's that whole "ten years and $10,000 fine" thing for illegal manufacturing of a Title II firearm...

It's illegal for a felon to possess a firearm anyway. If you're going to break the law to get one he's pointing out an easier way to do it.

pedrop357:This is just a way to deny NFA transfers by requiring all of them to have CLEO signoff. The administration can pretend that they did nothing to stop anyone legally allowed from obtaining firearms.

Thank you. I was wondering how this was actually an issue.

dittybopper:Replace it with a notification to the local CLEO instead of a requirement that they sign off on it, and the option to file in opposition if there is some reason the CLEO knows that the person shouldn't get the gun.

That replaces a "veto through inaction", ie., the CLEO can just refuse to sign the form, with an "active VETO", ie., the CLEO must fill out an additional form detailing why the person shouldn't be allowed, if they are opposed to that person getting a machine gun, and they have to submit it to the ATF within, say, 30 days of receiving notification.

That way, the CLEO has to come up with an actual, articulable *REASON* why, which can be rebutted by the attempted purchaser.

Sounds like a good idea. That gives you something to challenge if the reason is invalid.

This "loophole" was always for people/corporations intending to buy several class2/3 weapons and or silencers. Only one or two of each and it was still cheaper and easier just to go through the standard ATF bullshiat. But especially the precision shooters often have to buy one muffler for each of their rifles, either do to different caliber or whatever.

It is called that, pretty much by pretentious douchebags who are concerned that Hollywood has forever ruined the term "silencer", OR they are techish and know full well that a "silencer" doesn't silence anything, but instead lowers the decibel level to a more acceptable range to prevent hearing damage. Oh, and they are pretentious douchebags, too. These are the same people that refer to a rifle and it's bolt on accessories as a "weapons system," while people like me would call the same rifle a "stick with glass and a nightlight."

Henry Maxim invented the damn things, and he called them silencers. Good enough for me, although I really prefer the term "muffler" like you would associate with a car engine because it's the exact same technology.

smokingcrator:Typical shooters hearing protection muffs are 26 to 30 db of reduction. 33 is about the max. So no, if the silencer reduces it by 30db, you do NOT need hearing protection. It would be no louder than shooting with a good pair of hearing protection muffs already on.

And even at that reduction, if you shoot a lot, you're still doing damage to your hearing, especially if you're shooting at indoor ranges.

Wouldn't you take a 60 dB reduction in noise over a 30 dB reduction? I would.

dittybopper:Replace it with a notification to the local CLEO instead of a requirement that they sign off on it, and the option to file in opposition if there is some reason the CLEO knows that the person shouldn't get the gun.

The local cops in my town have no need to know what legal items I possess. At all. And that includes firearms.

Uranus Is Huge!:Did you submit it last week too with a different headline? Because this is a repeat - as are all of your points in every gun thread.

This is *NOT* a repeat. It's about something that is happening *NOW*. Read the date on TFA: August 30th, 2013, for an ATF Notice of Proposed Rule-Making dated on August 29th.

I haven't posted anything about that NPR.

(Don't mind conceding that you're very well informed).

Thanks.

But dude...you're completely obsessed.

No. I post in other threads about other things, especially if it touches on things like radios, or SIGINT, or one of my biggest advocacy areas, Safe Haven laws. It's just that you're suffering from observational bias: You come into gun threads, or ones that may be tangentially related, and there I am. Well, of course. You don't see me in the ubiquitous threads about the Kardashians, because I couldn't care less about them, so I don't post in them. Often enough, though, I'll be posting humorous or punning comments in threads unrelated to guns. Like this one:

Devo:Are gun rights advocates against any additional regulations? That is what I am getting out of this. Is it that they are afraid of a slippery slope? Give and inch and Obama has your guns? Is regulation a dirty word? Please explain.

et's say I have this cake. It is a very nice cake, with "GUN RIGHTS" written across the top in lovely floral icing. I received it from the 2nd amendment and the Dick act of 1902....Along you come and say, "Give me that cake." I say, "No, it's my cake." You say, "Let's compromise. Give me half." I respond by asking what I get out of this compromise, and you reply that I get to keep half of my cake.

Okay, we compromise. Let us call this compromise The National Firearms Act of 1934.

There I am with my half of the cake, and you walk back up and say, "Give me that cake."

I say, "No, it's my cake."

You say, "Let's compromise." What do I get out of this compromise? Why, I get to keep half of what's left of the cake I already own.

So, we have your compromise -- let us call this one the Gun Control Act of 1968 -- and I'm left holding what is now just a quarter of my cake.

And I'm sitting in the corner with my quarter piece of cake, and here you come again. You want my cake. Again.

You say, "Let's compromise once more." What do I get out of this compromise? I get to keep one eighth of what's left of the cake I already own?

So, we have your compromise -- let us call this one the Machine gun ban of 1986 -- and I'm left holding what is now just an eighth of my cake.

I sit back in the corner with just my eighth of cake that I once owned outright and completely, I glance up and here you come once more.

You say nothing and just grab my cake; This time you take several bites -- we'll call this compromise the Clinton Executive Orders -- and I'm left with about a tenth of what has always been MY DAMN CAKE and you've got nine-tenths of it.

Then we compromised with the Lautenberg Act (nibble, nibble), the HUD/Smith and Wesson agreement (nibble, nibble), the Brady Law (NOM NOM NOM), the School Safety and Law Enforcement Improvement Act (sweet tap-dancing Freyja, my finger!)

I'm left holding crumbs of what was once a large and satisfying cake, and you're standing there with most of MY CAKE, making anime eyes and whining about being "reasonable", and wondering "why we won't compromise".

EvilEgg:dittybopper: The ease with which criminals can legally by machine guns they aren't eligible to own just has to stop!

Mrbogey: Obama actually thinks this happens.

I know, the GOP would never try to pass laws to combat a problem that didn't exist. That is why they are so down on the anti-voter fraud laws.

We don't need to combat voter fraud because no one gets convicted of voter fraud just like we don't need to combat excesses by the banking industry because banking industry executives don't get convicted.

Uranus Is Huge!:I've lost all ability to write coherent sentences. Enjoy your productive and informative conversation.

I knew what you meant.

And while I appreciate the warning, I don't think I'm capable of sinking down the level of Steve B. Bevets truly is a one trick pony, and while I won't begrudge anyone their faith, I will say that often faith is something that can blind us to actual truths. Not "truths" in the metaphorical sense, but "truth" in the sense of data that can be proven by rigorous, evidence based, logical argument. Formal logic, not "because I say so" logic.

There have been times when I've started to post something, then looked for evidence to back up my claims, only to find that I was wrong in my understanding of the situation. Usually I catch it before I post, but not always. And I've posted "mea culpas" before.

Speaking of gun pictures, though, would you like to see a pic of my *OTHER* cat?

zepher:I'm left holding crumbs of what was once a large and satisfying cake, and you're standing there with most of MY CAKE, making anime eyes and whining about being "reasonable", and wondering "why we won't compromise".

And yet the nation is awash in legally owned guns, and more are being made and bought every day. I think you overstate your case just a teeny tiny bit, melodrama doesn't really help.

/But as a gun-owner, there can be a ridiculous amount of regulation in areas that hardly make sense.//California regs are even worse.///Hasn't stopped me from having one.